Attempt at reconciling free will and determinism

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Even in the event that you are held at gunpoint, you still act according to your will to stay alive. You do not choose death because your will to live is greater than your will to serve some moral purpose. Therefore, there is a flaw in compatibilism, which claims that you are only exercising free will if you are not subject to another person's will, and your actions are in accordance with your desires. One is always under the influence of at least one other person's will because there has never been only one human in existence, otherwise they would be the last. Your existence is in fact tied to the existence of a previous human, who raised you (or did not raise you) according to their will.
Therefore, we are always acting in free will, whether or not the extent that it is influenced by someone else places death as an alternative to certain actions. At any moment, we can die if our will brings us to carry out certain actions, so this is irrelevant. Also, we may in certain circumstances choose life because it is willed so by others, meaning perhaps that our internal desire to please others out-willed our internal desire to escape reality.
I also hold that all of our actions are determined by the past, and that anything that has happened çould only have happened that way. Although, this is not the same for events which have not occurred. These events çould happen in any way imaginable. They also can only happen in one way, which never completely matches any of the imaginable possibilities. With regards to the future, there are many possibilities formed by human thought, but the present is the only thing which actually happens.
The typical explanation having free will is having the ability to make choices. Making choices is an action itself, and a felt experience. It does not require that there be more than one possible outcome to the act of choosing once the outcome happens, but rather directly BEFORE it happens~~~during the act of choosing.
Again, compatibilists say that we have free will if we are acting in accordance with our desires and not influenced by the will of others. I partially agree with this, but I would like to place free will on more of a spectrum, in which the less indecision a person has, and the less time that they spend thinking of directing their free will in a direction different from that which it is already moving, then the more free will they have. Will is an energy source which is depleted by the act of making decisions. In the example of a person held at gunpoint, their will to survive is constantly working against some of their other internal motives, putting them in a constant state of contradiction/indecision, depleting their free will. Another example would be a person who is happy and full of energy; they are this way currently because they do not contradict themselves internally and do not make many decisions which they perceive as "tough". They go with the flow, man
lemme know what you humans think

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 8,312 • Replies: 205

[+3] - Olivier5 - 01/15/2017Yes, it's the part of you you don't keep track of. The part that's in the "dark" (if consciousness is a "light"). But it's still you, whether conscious or not. When you dream,...

@ghurt3,

I think there is no free will. It's an illusion. It's seems we are predisposed to make choices based on factors that are biased towards the current mental state. An example of this is a blacked out drunk person who is shocked the next day when their friends inform them of their behavior the previous night. Our mental state constantly evaluates self ease. Which is why people struggle with addictions and can't complete goals even if they desperately want them. The mental state dictates behavior choice.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

If free will is a concept, which must be tied to something. Otherwise, how could it come into existence as a concept in our minds? (other than perhaps of our own origination/free will)

2 Replies

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

If free will is a concept, which must be tied to something. Otherwise, how could it come into existence as a concept in our minds? (other than perhaps of our own origination/free will)

There are dozens of words in English that don't have validity. Take for one example the word fate. It can not be proven. It's a nonprovable hypothesis. You can't step outside fate to determine okay this was in fact not fated. So the word fate is meaningless.

Just having a concept doesn't make the thing real or exist. The soul is not determined yet people are desperately certain that such a thing exists. No. The proof of its existence is equal with the proof of its nonexistence.

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

Quote:

Otherwise, how could it come into existence as a concept in our minds?

Ghurt, it's intuition. Without free will the entire shebang seems worthless

There's something dualistically wrong with the idea of determinism, something we can't presently resolve largely 'cause of limitations in present reasoning process

Yes, no, I can't defend my position

2 Replies

@Krumple,

I think that fate in fact does make sense, but that does not mean that we can prove such. I don't think we can prove anything with absolute conclusively; we can only convince. So, I will try to do so here.
ok so we take the word fate. Here is its definition: the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.
This seems to be exactly the same as determinism, except for that word supernatural in there. So, here is its definition:(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
So, combining the two definitions we have: the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by an event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
Hm. On second thought, I'd say this matches the view of determinism exactly. determinism states that everything that occurs is determined by some prior event and could not occur in any other way. For fate, we have the development of events beyond a person's control, which were determined by an event (a prior event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. You may say that this does not make sense because we can understand why the determining event occurred, or what the force was which caused it, but if you go back far enough there are things which are beyond our understanding, such as why the universe exists in the first place. Also, we cannot directly experience the past, only our memories of it, so we cannot have absolute certainty about it.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Otherwise, how could it come into existence as a concept in our minds?
Ghurt, it's intuition. Without free will the entire shebang seems worthless

There's something dualistically wrong with the idea of determinism, something we can't presently resolve largely 'cause of limitations in present reasoning process

Yes, no, I can't defend my position

A roller coaster has a predefined track but doesn't make it any less exciting even after the first ride.

Life can be meaningful and enjoyable even though it's determined. We just are not aware of how things flow (yet).

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Worthless? What if I enjoy my daily programming?

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

I think that fate in fact does make sense, but that does not mean that we can prove such. I don't think we can prove anything with absolute conclusively; we can only convince. So, I will try to do so here.
ok so we take the word fate. Here is its definition: the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.
This seems to be exactly the same as determinism, except for that word supernatural in there. So, here is its definition:(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
So, combining the two definitions we have: the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by an event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
Hm. On second thought, I'd say this matches the view of determinism exactly. determinism states that everything that occurs is determined by some prior event and could not occur in any other way. For fate, we have the development of events beyond a person's control, which were determined by an event (a prior event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. You may say that this does not make sense because we can understand why the determining event occurred, or what the force was which caused it, but if you go back far enough there are things which are beyond our understanding, such as why the universe exists in the first place. Also, we cannot directly experience the past, only our memories of it, so we cannot have absolute certainty about it.

I'm a determinist. Just because I talk about fate being meaningless doesn't mean I can't use it or be a determinist. All I can honestly admit is that there is no way to prove it. You have to have the ability to step outside determinism to experience nondeterminism. You can't.

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

Worthless? What if I enjoy my daily programming?

I'm not saying we are robotic however we ARE definitely biased to our mental state. Which is why people can behave irrationally when their brain chemistry is messed up. We are at the mercy of our predispositions.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

What can be proved though? Why does it matter that something cannot be proved? How does this make it "invalid" and non-existent? What does it mean for something to exist?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Who is at the mercy of whom?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

we simply are what we are

0 Replies

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

What can be proved though? Why does it matter that something cannot be proved? How does this make it "invalid" and non-existent? What does it mean for something to exist?

Well it becomes abstract and less clear since it's not provable. Like an insane person who believes he has a giant diamond buried in his backyard. Every time you ask him if you can dig it up he never gives you a clear reason as to why you can't. He just says you can't.

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

Who is at the mercy of whom?

We are at the mercy of ourselves. Against our own will..

1 Reply

@Krumple,

For one thing, how do we know if this insane person actually believes there is a diamond? If he did, wouldn't it follow that he would have a reason why the diamond could not be dug up or simply allow it to be dug up?
Ah ok so he simply has it in his mind that there is this diamond and is in denial of the truth. You say that free will is like this diamond. It is "abstract and less clear". Ah well, that does not mean that we cannot understand how or why such a thing occurs in a humans mind. If this were impossible, then the thing must have appeared for absolutely no reason, meaning that it is originated in and of itself just like actions of free will. This is contradictory. So, in my original post I attempted to explain the nature of free will.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

What is the difference between ourselves and our will?

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

For one thing, how do we know if this insane person actually believes there is a diamond? If he did, wouldn't it follow that he would have a reason why the diamond could not be dug up or simply allow it to be dug up?
Ah ok so he simply has it in his mind that there is this diamond and is in denial of the truth. You say that free will is like this diamond. It is "abstract and less clear". Ah well, that does not mean that we cannot understand how or why such a thing occurs in a humans mind. If this were impossible, then the thing must have appeared for absolutely no reason, meaning that it is originated in and of itself just like actions of free will. This is contradictory. So, in my original post I attempted to explain the nature of free will.

There is a cause for actions, thoughts and things you say when you say them. It's not random. It's not consciously thought out. Which is why some people behave irracticly at times. Like road rage. Imagine if people behaved like they do driving as if they were walking. It doesn't happen.

The same about diet or habits. A person can know it's unhealthy or even deadly but still do them. Their mental state over rides conscious choice.

Sex, entertainment, boredom, laziness, lack of empathy and so on will influence actions over conscious choice. Even if you are fully aware of the dangers.

1 Reply

@ghurt3,

ghurt3 wrote:

What is the difference between ourselves and our will?

Well I go as far as to say there is no self. It's an invented idea by the senses. It's completely undefined. We follow the course of experience. Like a river can't just chose not to flow or change direction at will. It requires other factors before it can change. We are no different.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

What if your conscious choice is to not give a ****?
What if the conscious choice overrides the "irrational" desires? Would this not be an example of free will, according to your theory that we have a conscious chooser and an irrational mental state?

1 Reply

Attempt at reconciling free will and determinism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know